Judgment:
1. The appeal is taken up for disposal, after waiving deposit with consent of both sides.
2. The question for consideration in this appeal is the valuation for assessment of intimation pearls that the appellant imported. In the bill of entry that it filed for their clearance it described the goods as "false imitation pearls of plastic". The vale declared for assessment was at the rate of US$ 8 per kg. CIF which was the value shown in the invoice of the consignee. Officers of the department had the samples of the goods tested by the Chemical Examiner of the department and also had their value assessed by 2%. The Chemical Examiner reported that the goods were composed of calcium carbonate and not made of plastic. The two persons who examined the goods, Pankaj M.Jhaveri and Atul P. Jhaveri, reported, after confirming that the goods were imitation pearls, that "to the best of our knowledge and judgment, the fair value of the goods may be US$ 60 per Kilo CIF". In his two statements that were recorded under Section 108 of the Act, Shirish Shah, proprietor of the appellant, had said that he did not pay anything more than US$ 8 per kilogram to the supplier of the goods.
3. It is on the value reported by Pankaj Jhaveri on his view that the goods were misdeclared, since they were not made of plastic and on what he finds to be an admission of misdeclaration. In the reply to the notice, the importer had sought cross-examination of the two persons who signed the valuation certificate and of the Customs officers who were concerned with the case. The Commissioner has declined to permit cross-examination on the ground that no specific justification for this was furnished. On reading the reply to the notice, it has to be accepted that there is no specific ground for seeking cross-examination of the various persons. Counsel for the appellant contends before us however, that the sole evidence of value is the certificate of the two persons who were stated to be members of some trade panel. He says that their competence to be experts in matters relating to artificial jewellery has not been established; nor does the certificate indicate any basis for his somewhat hesitant conclusion that the value may be US$ 60 per kilogram. He points out that there is no other evidence to question the value declared by the appellant that the appellant had not accepted at any stage that the goods were misdeclared. He contends that the goods are in fact mainly composed of calcium carbonate and have been coated with plastic in order to give them. lustre. This is what was in mind when the goods were described as imitation pearl made of plastic. For this purpose, he seeks for cross-examination of Chemical Examiner. He further adds that the methods of valuation adopted by the Commissioner itself is open question. If he was able to establish that transaction value was not acceptable. The law required him to consequentially go through Clause 5, 6 and 7 of the Valuation Rules before adopting the value. This has not been done.
4. We find the request made for cross-examination of all the three persons eminently reasonable. The only basis for the value arrived at by the Commissioner is the statements of the so called experts. It is on their statements that the value, not only of the consignment under examination, but three previous consignments, has been enhanced. It is therefore only fair that the appellant should be given an opportunity to demonstrate that the value arrived at by these persons is not proper and subject them to cross-examination. Similarly, since the Commissioner has placed two emphasises on misdeclaration of the goods in that the test report says that they are not made of plastic, we think it only fair that the Chemical Examiner should be given an opportunity to cross-examination in order for the appellant to be able to demonstrate its opinion. It is the appellant's stand that the goods in fact limitation pearls classifiable in hearing 71.18 and cultured pearls in heading 71.10 as the Commissioner has found them to be. We therefore think that the appellant should be given an opportunity to be heard on the aspects of valuation as well as classification as also on its claim that the samples of the goods which were examined and valued are not shown to have been drawn by the consignee which was imported.
5. The goods were imported some time in early April of 2001. Show cause notice was issued in December of that year and the Commissioner's order was passed in December the next year. In view of what appears to be the inordinate delay that has taken out, we except the Commissioner to complete his adjudication expeditiously in any event not later than three months from the receipt of this order. Counsel for the appellant undertakes that he will not make more than a notice of ten days for a hearing and will not seek adjournment except for gravest of the reasons.